agora_knowledge_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the snapshot is immutable, the adapter is allowlisted, and query text cannot grant permissions or be fetched as a URL, but it omits important behavioral details such as whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on refresh, and what permissions are required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the security constraints. It is efficient, though the first sentence could be more directly aligned with the tool's search-oriented name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has four parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain parameter meaning and usage context. It covers security constraints well and an output schema exists to explain return values, but it leaves critical parameter and selection information unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It indirectly clarifies that 'query' is text and must not be a URL, and that 'source_id' comes from an allowlisted adapter, but it says nothing about 'limit' or 'force_refresh', leaving half the parameters semantically opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create or reuse an immutable KnowledgeSnapshot from an allowlisted adapter.' This is concrete enough to understand the core action, but it does not explain how this relates to the tool's name 'knowledge_search' or distinguish it from sibling tools such as agora_knowledge_snapshot or agora_knowledge_fetch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent information is the security constraint on query text, which is not the same as directing an agent to the right tool for a task.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.